RMS uses CC licence

I suspect its aim was to prevent them from only quoting the email, without releasing it in
full. In fact, under UK copyright law, it appears that s30(1) of the CDPA 1988 already
provides such protection - quotation from a work is valid for the purposes of criticism or
review, provided that the work is already available to the public - so whilst they had to
release the email before they could quote from it in any case, they aren't prevented from
doing a hackjob on it (although having read the article, I wonder how much of it is
intentional distortion and how much is simply that the journalist was too lazy to read and
understand the whole email and wrote his article after just skimming the first half - ever
noticed how much easier it seems to be for people in general to travel an absurd distance to
support their malformed first impressions than it is for them to admit their misjudgement?
I've certainly done it at times).